An Experiment In Describing Information Elements

[Mattie]

One of the things that sorta (okay, REALLY) irks me is how the forum, in general, uses the Information Elements (IE) in conversation and the strange telephone manner to the point that they lose their original intent and meaning. A lot of subjective and unrelated tags start to pop up that now the IE have more of a colloquial meaning rather than objective that we all understand exactly the same. So I figured I'd try something out to see if I'm completely off-base with this assumption or not.

I purpose to anyone willing to define the IE that is in your creative function. I decided on the creative function position because it seems like, out of all the other functions, where most of our focus goes as we are actively using it and like to recognize it, while our leading function is more like the structure of existence that we take for granted. Plus, my own observations have noticed people being more familiar and chatty about their creative function, so let's just placate me Also, we're defining the IE in the creative function by itself, not paired along with the leading function.

The challenge is to not use any abstract concepts (such as efficiency, logic, aggression) nor infer an innate sense of either the positive or negative, striving to obtain a universal definition that seems right to you, because, well, you're part of the universe The reason I don't go to the wiki for a definition is because of these abstract concepts being present, and how they complicate things concerning subjectivity.

For example, I would be defining . I am NOT looking for something like this: deals with the bonds between people concerning morality and how each person makes the other feel. For me personally, there are a lot of problems with this sort of statement (this was an exaggeration for the sake of an example, of course). First, a definition like that suggests that those without in the ego have some sort of lack of morality, and morality overall differs from culture to culture, and is a hard concept to grasp as an IE since it's so ambiguous. I think that every type has a concept of morality that is most likely shaped by their IE placements and their growth as a human. Also, IEs don't relate strictly to people, they are aspects of reality, therefore spanning all sorts of information. Meaning, you should be able to view information without the involvement of another human being there (I have this issue with the colloquial definitions of as well).

Here is my take on the definition of :

observes the qualitative data between two objects and fits it into a system of data organized by qualitative relativity, or rejects information that does not follow the already established qualitative consistency.

So, take a whack at it? Or am I just crazy? I figure I'd at least try while I'm interested

[ArchonAlarion]

observes the quantitative data between two objects and fits it into a system of data organized by quantitative relativity, or rejects information that does not follow the already established quantitative consistency.



jk

[Lobo]

Object and concepts are taken in a universal context. Groups things based on their properties, identity. Looks past apparent properties to understand the intrinsic value and function.

[Mattie]

observes the quantitative data between two objects and fits it into a system of data organized by quantitative relativity, or rejects information that does not follow the already established quantitative consistency.



jk

Well, I was thinking that! Is it too far off? Besides you just being uncreative

ETA: Everyone make sure to put your input in on the other suggestions, but it'd be nice if you offered up your own instead of just picking apart others definitions.

[Suz]

Here is my take on the definition of :

observes the qualitative data between two objects and fits it into a system of data organized by qualitative relativity, or rejects information that does not follow the already established qualitative consistency.

So, take a whack at it? Or am I just crazy? I figure I'd at least try while I'm interested

observes the quantitative data between two objects and fits it into a system of data organized by quantitative relativity, or rejects information that does not follow the already established quantitative consistency.



jk

I REALLY appreciate a thread like this, because I am still unsure about some of my conceptual understanding of the IEs. So thank you look.to.the.sky for making this thread!

As for the definitions above, i would change "qualitative" and "quantitative" to "relationship-oriented" for and "task-oriented" for . Because Ti can be qualitative too, no? quantitative = numbers. . .

so:

observes the relationship-oriented data between two objects and fits it into a system of data organized by relationship-oriented relativity, or rejects information that does not follow the already established relationship-oriented consistency.

observes the task-oriented data between two objects and fits it into a system of data organized by task-oriented relativity, or rejects information that does not follow the already established task-oriented consistency.

What do you guys think?

[ArchonAlarion]

Ugh my internet keeps crapping out on me. I was editing my post, but I'll continue here...

I think that Ti is sort of like that. Basically, reducing larger concepts (shit you see/think about) into quantitative data and then sorting that data is kind of what Ti does.

It's more about an innate root way of comparing and sorting signs. Signs don't have to be numbers, though. Ti takes something complex and reduces it into discrete signs, and those signs are compared to signs previously understood and sorted, etc. Ti is not the signs, but the actual process of recognizing an object as being made up of comparable (ratio-nal) components and then knowing what to do with them.

[Mattie]

I REALLY appreciate a thread like this, because I am still unsure about some of my conceptual understanding of the IEs. So thank you look.to.the.sky for making this thread!

Thanks, I was hoping this would be useful and not just estranged ramblings

As for the definitions above, i would change "qualitative" and "quantitative" to "relationship-oriented" for and "task-oriented" for . Because Ti can be qualitative too, no? quantitative = numbers. . .

Actually, quantitative does not have to be numbers, that's just the most common that comes to mind. AA gives a good look into it, and I implore other creatives to expand more on it. But either way, something quantitative can be measured, while qualitative is more of a description, that can't be measured.

so:

observes the relationship-oriented data between two objects and fits it into a system of data organized by relationship-oriented relativity, or rejects information that does not follow the already established relationship-oriented consistency.

observes the task-oriented data between two objects and fits it into a system of data organized by task-oriented relativity, or rejects information that does not follow the already established task-oriented consistency.

What do you guys think?

Relationships need people, or a living thing that you can have a relationship with, I suppose, in order for that to work. You would have to further define relationship. And I'm not sure how task orientated differs itself from relationships, or anything. It suggests those who don't have don't have a firm grasp on anything task related... And that's over generalizing, don't you think?

I think that Ti is sort of like that. Basically, reducing larger concepts (shit you see/think about) into quantitative data and then sorting that data is kind of what Ti does.

It's more about an innate root way of comparing and sorting signs. Signs don't have to be numbers, though. Ti takes something complex and reduces it into discrete signs, and those signs are compared to signs previously understood and sorted, etc. Ti is not the signs, but the actual process of recognizing an object as being made up of comparable (ratio-nal) components and then knowing what to do with them.

Fixed you. But I agree nonetheless, would you tweak either in any way or does that settle well in your brains?

[Suz]

Thanks, I was hoping this would be useful and not just estranged ramblings



Actually, quantitative does not have to be numbers, that's just the most common that comes to mind. AA gives a good look into it, and I implore other creatives to expand more on it. But either way, something quantitative can be measured, while qualitative is more of a description, that can't be measured.

so:



Relationships need people, or a living thing that you can have a relationship with, I suppose, in order for that to work. You would have to further define relationship. And I'm not sure how task orientated differs itself from relationships, or anything. It suggests those who don't have don't have a firm grasp on anything task related... And that's over generalizing, don't you think?



Fixed you. But I agree nonetheless, would you tweak either in any way or does that settle well in your brains?

Well speaking for myself, i know that for me to perform a task I have to reframe it to be relationship-oriented in some way, in order to be able to proceed effectively.

so no, i dont think that's over-generalizing, i think my generalization works. . .for me anyway, so i guess i'm not sure.

I'm having trouble really conceptualizing your and AA's definitions.

[Mattie]

Well speaking for myself, i know that for me to perform a task I have to reframe it to be relationship-oriented in some way, in order to be able to proceed effectively.

so no, i dont think that's over-generalizing, i think my generalization works. . .for me anyway, so i guess i'm not sure.

I'm having trouble really conceptualizing your and AA's definitions.

I think it's because it's almost minimalist as it tries to encompass a lot in a small amount of words. I basically wanted to use language that wasn't debatable in definition, that everyone who reads it will get a similar understanding because there is little room for personal interpretation. Unfortunately it sounds a little stuffy because of that, but in the end, I think it serves the purpose. Let's see if I can explain the mess of thoughts in my head

observes the qualitative data between two objects

Because we're talking about aspects of reality and information metabolism, we have to view the IEs as just processing info, so not something like relationships, but maybe information that pertains to relationships, as well as other things. I always found the usual logic vs relationships binary a little lopsided, I mean, you can logically go about your relationships... It's just messy and dependent on perspective. So the first step in my explanation is that sees the descriptive qualities that exist between two object. So an example would be how two people feel towards each other, because that's between them and is dependent on there being two objects. When it comes to understanding how two people feel about one another, you can't really quantify it, feelings aren't really measurable in a quantity sense. But you can describe it, and you can make logical sense by saying "They get along because they like playing video games until 3 AM in the morning."

and fits it into a system of data organized by qualitative relativity,

So egos, let's say, have a web of these sorts of descriptions and what they relate to. To relate back to the first example, "getting along" and "playing video games until 3 AM together" make sense and relate to one another. might have a problem with this because it doesn't apply to every instance where two people play video games together, as they might try to quantify the variables (maybe? input?) and it doesn't occur every time. But to someone with , these descriptions relate to one another.

or rejects information that does not follow the already established qualitative consistency.

With this part, let's add in the the factor that someone told you that these two people who played video games with each other until late at night were bitter enemies with one another and couldn't stand each other's existence. would compare the "bitter enemy" description to the other descriptions already in the system, and doubt the validity since it isn't consistent with what they already know of the qualities of people who play video games with one another until late in the night.

I think I might have explain this well, or got too long winded Either way, I hope I didn't make things more confusing than they needed to be.

[UDP]

"when you are deluded and full of doubt, even a thousand books of scripture is not enough. When you have realized understanding, even one word is too much"

that came up when watching some video about zen quotes and so on. It applies here I think, even though it probably seems haughty and useless.

[somavision]

I want shiny thing
I want feel nice
I want you smile
I want goodness
I want structures
I want practical
I want alternative
I want make dream

[UDP]

I think one of the biggest problems of the theory, in general, is identifying what it is not.

[somavision]

my version:

I want hit things, namely YOU
I want you go away cuz you smell bad and look ewy and look ugly with no paper bag on head, and you should be SHUNNED
I want see you CRY
I want you feel PAIN
I want you follow rules and regulations and get STUCK
I want you die cuz you make waste and breathe bad air with your filthy LIES
I want you listen to my alternative crazy theory that GPS let reptilian CIA agents know where you live, find you, watch you bathe so you become confused, paranoid, lose mind, kill yourself, and DIE
I want you and everyone believe nuke hit you and city and world unless you and everyone hide in Antarctica so you get skin cancer, starve to death, die, go to hell, and suffer FOREVER




eh, I thought I could do better than this.

I like.

[Mattie]

I want shiny thing
I want feel nice
I want you smile
I want goodness
I want structures
I want practical
I want alternative
I want make dream

I'm not sure if this was in jest or not, but this is exactly what I'm working against All of those things are subjective and can be interpreted differently person to person. What feels nice to you and what feels nice to me can have completely different criteria, and honestly, it's not what is really about. I wish i could ban things like this

[Absurd]

I wish i could ban things like this

Yeah, I would like a few members electrocuted.

[Lobo]

somavision seems so misunderstood, lol.

[Azeroffs]

as fields or relationships seems so unnecessarily abstract. While I think aspects of thinking of it n that way may help you to grasp it better, I don't think that's how it truly exists.

The best way anyone can truly get to know the elements at this point in time is by looking to people who use those elements. I think this thread is good way of going about it, but of course there is always the problem of assumptions that we truly know someone's or even our own type.

I don't know anyone who would think of the way they think as in terms of relationships. Understanding the elements in this way seems completely unfounded.

The best way to understanding thinking and feeling is from the point of view of judgment which is centered either entirely away from or entirely part of the self. It is known that there are parts of the brain which act as giving a perspective of self and perspective of not self. So to make judgment from the perspective of impartiality is thinking, and judgment of partiality is feeling.

So, and . Introverted Judgment. Taking what has been said from may sources and trying to compress it together to produce the common understanding that they all try to provide: Fi seems be a focus on how an individual would categorize something in terms of the way they 'feel' about it. The individual would devote themselves to this judgment and under no circumstances deviate from it. They attempt to live consistently to this categorization of like, dislike, and every level in between and beyond those two categorizations. Ti would act more or less exactly the same except from the perspective of impartial or objective factors. Many times this may outwardly appear as a following of rules because all encompassing objective guidelines are created by the Ti type which they 'think' they ought to live by. Of course, these are as used by IJ types.

This is how I am beginning to understand these elements anyway.

[717495]

Yeah, I think this is pretty good, basically. That seems how I'm beginning to understand it too. Fi in some of its more basic terms is Static-Judgment that is Introverted and Internal. Usually the hint I get from "internal" is information that is treated as: more subjective, unique in perception to the self, and not general? This would kind of be a difference between feeling and thinking, here, but I think feeling and thinking are better words than internal and external. The wording is somewhat off. I don't have my terms perfectly understood either, so I like to look at it explained by various people. I don't think these terms do justice the actual idea of it. One aspect of having a dominant function, like Fi, is that I try to be void of the opposite valued ID function, Fe, and I do initiate Fe when it serves Fi.

Fi does have to do with maintenance of relationships with certain important people when it comes to that, and it seems to also be mainly focused around the themes of peace, introspection, feeling judgments "toward things," feeling your way, something more personal in my opinion. It pulls things in to the self, where as Fe reaches out and influences others. Fi is more to understand, through self, where as Fe is more to (inter)act with one's emotions. And Ti is more to gain an objective understanding from the acting experience, and its personal through experience, not really through "self" like Fi. Then Te is not the "gaining maximum experience," in as much as it is to encompass and use the knowledge.

[Suz]

Yeah, I think this is pretty good, basically. That seems how I'm beginning to understand it too. Fi in some of its more basic terms is Static-Judgment that is Introverted and Internal. Usually the hint I get from "internal" is information that is treated as: more subjective, unique in perception to the self, and not general? This would kind of be a difference between feeling and thinking, here, but I think feeling and thinking are better words than internal and external. The wording is somewhat off. I don't have my terms perfectly understood either, so I like to look at it explained by various people. I don't think these terms do justice the actual idea of it. One aspect of having a dominant function, like Fi, is that I try to be void of the opposite valued ID function, Fe, and I do initiate Fe when it serves Fi.

Same.

That whole post was very well put, and reflects my understanding as well.

Wait, polikujm, you're EII now? Weren't you ILE?

[Suz]

I agree that it applies. Hence why it took me probably forty some minutes to punch out what I did because you have to be really careful on your choice of words.

...

I am not saying socionics is difficult material. It's not. But it is, as it is, still very vague and unpolished and has too much dirt that needs to be wiped away so that people can see it as it is meant to be seen. To be seen as it is.

I think the problem with READING socionics material without much practical guidance is that descriptions can be interpreted in MANY many different ways. And lots of socionically-described qualities are nuances that can really only be appreciated by comparing lots of people with lots of different types.

What I wish is that a socionics expert would sit down with me in a place crowded with lots of people and point out the various manifestations of the IEs and sociotypes, so I can correlate what i've been reading with how it looks in real life.

I dont think any amount of reading is going to get me to that level of understanding.

[717495]

Hmm, no. I don't think I value Fe, and I'm definitely not Fe seeking. Before I used to selftype ILI because I thought I had PoLR-Fe, because I don't really like Fe, but now I don't think it is PoLR, because I do take things through my feelings and personally, much more unlike the ILI. I do I have a serious dislike for emotional expressions and those people who seem to flutter about, sufficate me with their love, and ask me how I'm doing, or whats the matter, or what they can do for me to make me feel better, or try to change my feelings or the atmosphere. I think Fi dominant makes sense, because I kind of counter all of that with being confident in my own ethical judgments and feelings, most of the time. Fe is annoying to me, and I have a fine time managing on my own and keeping my feelings about things to myself and for myself.

For some reason I thought I might be an NT, I think people were telling me I seem like an alpha, but I don't think it fits. I think the Ne part fits, but Ti role makes more sense, and Fi-PoLR makes no sense, and I'm very introverted.

[Azeroffs]

In response to the OP

as I understand it is roughly related to imagination. It is a perceptive function in that it is raw mental imagery that fills the void of uncertainty. It essentially pulls out an understanding based on a perceived pattern giving a complete picture where there are holes and spaces. It is our mind filling in the gaps of unknown data. It breaks through sensory illusions and mentally stumbles upon different realities, but the downfall is that it is highly unfounded and therefore never completely reliable.

[Galen]

I think I've come to an epiphany on introverted vs extroverted functions. It occurs to me that extroverted/object functions look for discretion and introverted/field functions look for cohesion. Extroverted functions seek to divide things and classify things as separate entities detached from everything else (object = discretion). Introverted functions want to connect things together and look for ways in which things are all similar (field = cohesion). So all that really differs between functions is where these discretions and cohesions are found.

This isn't really a new concept, just something I've finally come to realize and understand.

[Mattie]

Unfortunately I can't respond to everyone right now, but I'm totally glad this thread is getting people to think Hopefully tomorrow I'll be able to address all the points I found interesting. But I'd like to refocus the eventual result of this discussion:

For those who already gave definitions, try and be concise, to give one main idea with undebatable terms. I gave a one sentence definition which terms cannot be perceived in multiple manners. I still find too broad of ideas, abstractions, in everyone's explanations of IEs.You should be able to say this sentence or two and the other person understand exactly what you're talking about. Take out the subjective qualities of your understanding, because that derails the purpose of these definitions being universal.

[silverchris9]

For those who already gave definitions, try and be concise, to give one main idea with undebatable terms. I gave a one sentence definition which terms cannot be perceived in multiple manners. I still find too broad of ideas, abstractions, in everyone's explanations of IEs.You should be able to say this sentence or two and the other person understand exactly what you're talking about. Take out the subjective qualities of your understanding, because that derails the purpose of these definitions being universal.

...I think this is a productive and interesting discussion, and I suppose it's valuable to try to do this as much as possible, but there really isn't such a thing as "undebatable terms." I understand why people want to press the uncertainty out of the language, but that's impossible to do with real language, let alone socionics. That said, I get that it's something that some people want/need as an aid to understanding and progress, so un-debate away!

Anyway, I suppose is the evaluation and manipulation of qualitative impressions as expressed through those means which are available to the senses. Or something on that order.

But quantitative/qualitative as a way of defining thinking vs. feeling functions is, I think, not quite accurate. I mean, it gets you thinking in the right direction, I suppose, but I don't think it's quite right.

[Mattie]

...I think this is a productive and interesting discussion, and I suppose it's valuable to try to do this as much as possible, but there really isn't such a thing as "undebatable terms." I understand why people want to press the uncertainty out of the language, but that's impossible to do with real language, let alone socionics. That said, I get that it's something that some people want/need as an aid to understanding and progress, so un-debate away!

Unity at all times would be incredibly unproductive in a budding school of thought, I wouldn't discourage disagreement in a progressive dialectic at all. What I'm talking about here is the terms we all use with one another, but when we say them, we're all thinking different things. How can we possibly have meaningful conversations when we are always on different pages, that we can't fully understand each others' ideas because there's a lack of shared definition? While you find it a little out of the way, I think and over-abundance of conflict/uncertainty is just stagnating this whole process. I think we can half-way in both perspectives.

I really don't think the language I used was debatable, you can point it out to me, since I might be mistaken. There might be something I'm overlooking, just using my definition as an example, can you point out the words that are up to enough subjective interpretation to change the definition from something I think I'm communicating? And yes, I know there's the element of everything being somewhat subjective when it's out of your hands and someone else is interpreting it, but it's kind of like math. You don't question the values of the numbers in the equation, you just work it out. There's a way to do that with words, and, of course, there's a way to do the opposite as well.

But quantitative/qualitative as a way of defining thinking vs. feeling functions is, I think, not quite accurate. I mean, it gets you thinking in the right direction, I suppose, but I don't think it's quite right.

You don't have to use the words I came up with, this was my take. What's your take, or what bothers you about it? Using Thinking/Logic and Feeling/Ethics bothers me more than Quantitative and Qualitative, but I'm definitely open to new avenues. I guess I want people to be observant if uneasiness to the reworking of definitions like this is due to the fact of changing something seemingly established, or it is actually not the correct definition.

I definitely like your posts though, just give me something to work with!

[Mattie]

Maybe I'm mistaken in the focus (or maybe I haven't thought it through enough?) of what seems to be the common thread of what we're talking about. I'd like to hear other ideas, and I'll just sit back in hopes more people become enthusiastic

[Suz]

The problem with one or two sentences is that you will fall into even more abstraction because you will have to over generalize your description. Your idea is working against your goal, in that case. You cannot give a concise though precise definition which bestows clarity in such few words. Not unless the reader can read your mind.

Such as, not to be too critical:



This sort of description would not give me a picture of Fi as it is. Not in a million years. They are words which hold no meaning, to me, even though I have studied socionics for six years, about. You need to say it in a way that the most general audience possible can grasp and truly picture this IM into their mind's eye. Unless you want a description to rest on a one instance stereotype, it will not happen in such few words, to be redundant but to be clear.

Yeah I was thinking the same exact things actually. We need a way of making the definitions more practical for use in everyday life.

[consentingadult]

I'm not sure if this was in jest or not, but this is exactly what I'm working against All of those things are subjective and can be interpreted differently person to person. What feels nice to you and what feels nice to me can have completely different criteria, and honestly, it's not what is really about. I wish i could ban things like this

it is subjective indeed, but in all honesty, your own desciption of Fi is so objective, universal and abstact, it has become meaningless as well as useless.

[consentingadult]

The problem with one or two sentences is that you will fall into even more abstraction because you will have to over generalize your description. Your idea is working against your goal, in that case. You cannot give a concise though precise definition which bestows clarity in such few words. Not unless the reader can read your mind.

Ah, I see you beat me to it. +1

[Mattie]

Ah, well, I'll have to figure something else out then.

[somavision]

I'm not sure if this was in jest or not, but this is exactly what I'm working against All of those things are subjective and can be interpreted differently person to person. What feels nice to you and what feels nice to me can have completely different criteria, and honestly, it's not what is really about. I wish i could ban things like this

I wish ban = Se

Be sure to watch my next educational video instalment, "Simple Socionic Solutions Made Easy".

somavision seems so misunderstood, lol.

it amuses and frustrates.

[Absurd]

I wish ban = Se

Be sure to watch my next educational video instalment, "Simple Socionic Solutions Made Easy".

Hehe!

[Mattie]

I wish ban = Se

Be sure to watch my next educational video instalment, "Simple Socionic Solutions Made Easy".

It takes me a while to catch sarcasm on the internet lol I don't know what it is, maybe it's text not really having a "voice."

[somavision]

It takes me a while to catch sarcasm on the internet lol I don't know what it is, maybe it's text not really having a "voice."

Yeah, I know the feeling.